Forum:Invader ZIM Wiki Policies
*First archive So, new forum thread. The rules on this wiki are still under construction, and could really use some major expansion. So, here, let's all just spill all our policy ideas right here. For a new rule start a new level two heading (or section), and then we'll cast our votes to see if the rule stays or goes. Just to keep things professional, take a look at the policies that apply on every wiki, whether you like it or not, and at for ideas. If you have suggestions or more ideas on an already existing subject, please include them along with your vote and only along with your vote under the appropriate votes section, so we can keep the page organized. This is a very serious matter, so no fooling around. Content Page Layout= For the sake of consistency, we should create a content page layout policy so you know what section goes first. Basically, the order of the page. On most high Traffic articles, it looks like this: *'Appearance' *'Personality' *'Role In ''Invader Zim' *'Facts of Doom''' (If applicable) *'See also' (If applicable) *'Gallery' (If applicable) This should be there in this order on every character article. As for object articles, it is extremely inconsistent, as you can see that there are different section names for the same thing or there are a bunch crammed into one. Some have the same section names as other articles, but they are still not in the same order. Any ideas for this? Votes #I'm in favor of this. #I'm in favour of this plan 14:53, October 14, 2012 (UTC) #I guess that's best for the wiki. Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 16:27, October 14, 2012 (UTC) :*Perhaps we should have a different section layout for object articles: -Appearance -Uses -Facts of Doom (w/a) -Gallery w/a) (I dunno if this is how you post comments, but this is sort of the way I saw it on another Wiki.Dr. Anonymous1 (talk) 03:18, October 12, 2012 (UTC) ::My preferred format is: ::*Description ::*Facts of Doom ::*Gallery ::When we create get to making the infoboxes for objects, I plan to include the ::users of said object there. :::OK, but what I was originally saying was that we should include a section of the article that describes what its functiona and applications are.Dr. Anonymous1 (talk) 04:12, October 12, 2012 (UTC) As you can see in Zim's Orbital Water Balloon, the description section covers the object's appearance and use. Also, are you against this rule of in favor? ::::Sooo, the layout you propose is "Description", "Facts", "Gallery"? Ok, I can live with that. Dr. Anonymous1 (talk) 16:08, October 14, 2012 (UTC) ::Yeah. I guess this gets a green light, then. Images Making sure that people don't upload anything inappropriate, stuff like that. Plus, I've seen a truckload of people who have uploaded fanart and didn't use it. Any of those, should be deleted as quickly as possible. This rule should be simple. Votes #I'm the one who nominated this. #I think we should have a different policy regarding what we do with fanart people upload onto articles: I think that, after we remove the fan material from the affected article(s), we should then paste it onto the uploader's talk page with an explanation/friendly warning; after all, many of them don't know that what they're doing is against the rules. Needless to say, however, this rule will not apply with obscene images/porn; we just delete them, and leave the user a somewhat less friendly warning. Dr. Anonymous1 (talk) 13:57, October 13, 2012 (UTC) ::Sounds good to me. :::Doctor, I looked around, and there is an image policy here. We should just add to it and reword a few things. Let's do it, then. Dr. Anonymous1 (talk) 20:20, October 13, 2012 (UTC) :Alrighty. #I say no. Images don't HAVE to be used on wikis. And, if we remove it, we might have just removed some really worthwhile pictures. I have made an entire gallery just out of unused pictures. ( Aaron Alexovich Art ). The only time we should remove pictures, is from an article, and it's something like fanart. Plus, fanart is a nice addition to the images. Sure it's a little more clutter, but..... fanart's still a nice addition. Who said this wiki has to be just facts? Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 16:25, October 14, 2012 (UTC) ::We can just make the rule so that there are no pornographic, racist, or just blatantly offensive images. Also, I had to move your vote so that it didn't get mixed up with the previous discussion. :::You're right, ZimFan. So, we can eliminate the "unused" aspect from the rules. And we're keeping my idea for what to do with fanart/fanfiction posted in articles? Dr. Anonymous1 (talk) 10:21, October 15, 2012 (UTC) ::::Yes, the idea with the fanart on articles is good. ::::Yes. Also, how long do you think people should be banned for fanart/fanfiction in articles? ::::I think: ::::First Time: Warning ::::Second Time: 3 day ban ::::Third Time: 1 month ban ::::fourth time: 6 month ban ::::Fifth Time: 1 year ban ::::Sixth Time: Indef ban. ::::And if it's inappropriate, we go much stricter ::::First Time: 1 week ban ::::Second Time: 1 month ban ::::Third time: 6 month ban ::::And if they come back and add ANOTHER inappropriate picture: Indef ban. ::::That sound good? Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 03:46, October 17, 2012 (UTC) :::::Seems fine to me. |-| Sockpuppetry and other= Sockpuppetry, Vandalism, Spam, curse words These are rather basic rules. The top 4 ban reasons on a wiki: SVSC S:Sockpuppetry V:Vandalism S:Spam C:Curse Words. Sockpuppetry You know, when someone makes another account, usually after a ban. Since they'll usually make a sockpuppet account after a long period ban, like 3 months, there usually is a no tolerance thing, so if that happens, the wiki will ban their IP for a indefinite amount of time. I say we do that. Votes: #I made this, so I obviously agree. Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 03:46, October 17, 2012 (UTC) #Support. #Definetly 22:02, October 19, 2012 (UTC) Vandalism Another thing you need to know. A vandal will destroy pages with no intent. And if you let him run amok, the wiki will eventually be in ruins. Usually the punishments are harsh, where it's no warning, they go flat out with a 6 month ban, and if they do it again, they'll be banned forever. but we shouldn't be as harsh. I say First Time: Warning Second Time: 1 week ban Third Time: 1 month ban Fourth Time: 3 month ban Fifth Time: 1 year ban Sixth Time: Indefinite ban Votes: #I made it, so I agree. Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 03:46, October 17, 2012 (UTC) #Support. #I agree with this. Vandalism must NOT be tolerated. Dr. Anonymous1 (talk) 20:16, October 17, 2012 (UTC) Spam One of the biggest problems on a wiki. SPAM. 'A user will do something thats doesnt feature as vandalism, but is still just as bad. They won't remove things: They'll ADD things. Things such as "WDAWEWHREWQRKQNRQWRNKQW" "SPAM!" That kinda of things. Usually the punishments aren't as harsh as a vandal, but I say they deserve the same amount of punishment as a vandal. First Time: Warning Second Time: 1 week ban Third Time: 1 month ban Fourth time: 3 month ban Fifth Time: 1 year ban Sixth Time: Indefinite ban. Votes: #I made it, so I agree. Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 03:46, October 17, 2012 (UTC) #Support. # I think that we shouldn't go from "Warning" to "One Week"; we should have a "1 Day" banning period in between the two. It makes more sense, and isn't as draconian. Dr. Anonymous1 (talk) 20:19, October 17, 2012 (UTC) # No, just... NO. I mean, a 1 day ban? That's just TOO soft. We can't show editors we can be stepped on! We can't always be happy go lucky. I think 1 week is good. Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 22:17, October 17, 2012 (UTC) ::I agree with ZimFan. |-| Curse Words= The last major thing: CURSE WORDS. Someone will go in a fit of rage and curse quite a bit. The punishments will start off with a 6 hour long ban period, like a "Cool down" period. And every time after the fourth time, it will always be a three day ban. I think we should follow that. First Time: 6 hours Second Time: 3 days Third Time: 1 week Every Time after fourth time: 3 weeks. Votes: #I made this, so I agree. Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 03:46, October 17, 2012 (UTC) #I'm mot very sure about this one, the bans are a bit short. If they only get six hours, they'll just come back later. I suggest that the first ban last three days, the second a week, and a two week ban if they do it again. If the message is just extremely offensive, such as said user insulting another person here, being racist, etc, and then ignoring our warnings, they should warrant 6 month ban or longer. #Actually, 3 days is a little long for first timers. I say 1 day first time, 3 days second time, 1 week third time. And if they really are extremely offensive, 1 month. That's a little harsh though blossom, half a year. Although if they do ignore our warnings, yeah, maybe a rather long ban is in order. But still, not SIX months. 3 months could do. Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 19:34, October 17, 2012 (UTC) (Lots of random space was here). --Hi! I'm ZimFan! Talk to me! YIPPIE! 16:13, November 22, 2012 (UTC) ::Excellent. Glad we got that all hammered out before this thread got... Too long. Oops. Oh, well, we finally reached an agreement on this particular rule, so at least we achieved something. And I got a chance to sharpen my debating skills! ;-) But, yeah, we're cool. Should we write this particular rule out on the actual rules page? Dr. Anonymous1 (talk) 23:17, October 18, 2012 (UTC) ::Not yet, let's wait until we complete all the rules. I still got a lot of topics I want to cover. Like ones on Editing Rules, (Consecutive "Black Hole" edits, Category adding) Chat rules, User Talk and forum page, etc. Let's settle all this out now. I'm also gonna close this voting session on this part. Let's just get this part over! Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 23:22, October 18, 2012 (UTC) ::::I have rules to suggest, too. :) For any voting that has ended, I'll add a little box above telling other users that they cannot vote there anymore. Sound okay? ::::::Awesome blossom! Let's do that! Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 23:37, October 18, 2012 (UTC) ::::;Oh, one last thing for banning on the whole :::::: If they ignore the warning, and it comes to banning, we should only ban them from the place where they committed their crimes. For example, if they swore on Chat after we warned them, they should just be kicked/banned from Chat (and maybe Talk Pages). I'm probably gonna get some opposition for this one, but I just wanted to throw it out there. Dr. Anonymous1 (talk) 23:49, October 18, 2012 (UTC) ::::::: Actually, that sounds like a really good idea! Like if they swear on chat, they should only get banned on chat, so they can still edit! Or if it's on talk pages, they can still go on the chat. Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 23:51, October 18, 2012 (UTC) :::::::: Fantastic! I was kind of talking about our banning policy as a whole, but ok! The way I see it, if someone was banned for something they did on articles, they can still use the Chat or Talk pages to contact Admins in the event that they feel that their banning was unjustified, that they're ready to come back, or simply want to apologise. People CAN turn over a new leaf, after all. And if all they have to say is verbal abuse, they can get banned from Chat/talk pages as well. Dr. Anonymous1 (talk) 00:03, October 19, 2012 (UTC) :::::::: Actually.... I don't think it could apply with sockpuppetry. Since sockpuppetry is making two accounts, and it's usually due to a long period of banning, you get a auto-indef ban for the entire wiki. Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 00:08, October 19, 2012 (UTC) :::::::::Yeah, good point. So Sock-puppeters are the sole exception. Dr. Anonymous1 (talk) 00:13, October 19, 2012 (UTC) ::A day long ban for the first ban sounds okay. I find six hours ''way to short and that's even shorter than the time I spend at school. Additionally, some people come to the wiki '''just to insert stuff like this into articles, so you guys should be wary of whether it's done on purpose or not. ::The last thing I'm going to bring up for this is inappropriate Usernames. Should they be auto-banned and then told to request a username change from the staff to get de-banned or get a warning first and then banned if the do not comply? ::That is a good idea. Because if it's a username, the admins can't remove it. All we can do is a ban, and hope they will comply. SUPPORT! Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 22:58, October 17, 2012 (UTC) :::I agree. Dr. Anonymous1 (talk) 23:14, October 17, 2012 (UTC) |-| Manual of style= I find this somewhat important. Basically, for people who don't know what this is, it's how our articles are written (present tense, past tense, etc.) We have an official language, which is american English. We should not use a mix of British English and American, as this can confuse readers that are at a more beginner level. Additionally, we should inform editors not to speculate on articles (no what ifs, maybe(s), quite possibly, etc). Votes #This rule should be good for our wiki. Syntax is important. #SUPPORT. Although, if they speculate on articles, how long should they be banned? I kinda find though speculations a rather less harsh type of vandalism. So here's what I think: First Time: Warning Second Time: 1 day ban Third Time: 1 week ban Fourth Time: 1 month ban Fifth Time: 6 month ban Sixth and FINAL Time: Indefinite ban. Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 19:40, October 17, 2012 (UTC) #I think that, when referencing events from episodes in articles, we should always use the past tense (eg: "In the episode Ten Minutes of Doom, Screamy told Dib where Zim was.") However, when describing characters or objects that are not deceased or destroyed, we should use the present tense. Dr. Anonymous1 (talk) 20:28, October 17, 2012 (UTC) :::That sounds good. |-| User Access requests and general discussion= User access requests Now, this has been on my mind for a while. I've been thinking that when someone that is requesting a promotion of any kind, they should nominate themselves on a page and give thier reasons. After that, current rollbackers, admins and bureaucrats should vote, and majority wins. additionally, an admin or rollbacker should be able to nominate other users if they see that they have been reliable, productive, and a pleasure to work with. Same things as before, the rollbackers and admins vote, and if the nomination comes through, we get a new rollbacker and whatnot. I know that Doctor seems to prefer the version on wikitroid, but this is just my suggestion that I feel gives a better sense of community, which is what a wiki is meant to be. still I feel that there should be requirements to be met and thing we'll look for, but it does not depend on edit quantity, as quality is always the ultimate judge (at least here it is). *Has been on the wiki for a sufficient and consistently active for at least approx. a month so that we know what kind of editor that user is. *Good-faith, good quality edits. *Friendly and polite to others. *Makes a good effort to help the wiki (not just making tiny grammar and rewording edits). *Follows rules and policies with diligence. Users that remind other, newer users of policies in the event were they break them usually get them on my good side, but that just me. Votes #As the one who suggested the policy, I'm in favor of it. #I say no. We already have way too many rollbackers and admins for what it's worth right now. But in the future, maybe a yes. And people should not be able to nominate other people for a promotion, because the user should do it themself if they did, because what if someone doesn't want to be promoted? Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 04:04, October 20, 2012 (UTC) ::In fact, this proposal is for the future. I see your point with that, what I proposed for the users nominating other users is a system that I've seen work well in several other developed wikis. |-| General Discussion= When we suggest something, like a big change to the wiki, it should be discussed prior and agreed upon before. I want to suggest a page like "Invader ZIM wiki:Profile Change proposals" were we can discuss profile picture changes, and the vote system like the one here would be used. Votes #As the one who suggested the policy, I'm in favor of it. #I'm pretty sure the forum can suffice for that. Like Forum:Invader ZIM Wiki:Article Changes. We don't need seperate pages for it. Unless you mean it another way. Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 04:05, October 20, 2012 (UTC) Talk pages and user pages For user pages; *Invader Zim Wiki is not a site like Facebook or MySpace, so you should not be focusing most of your edits to you user page. *No advertising (ex. Flash Gaming site). *No insulting content. (See SVSC) For talkpages; *Do no remove your own messages, and alter or remove the messages of another user, as talkpages on a wiki is not like a wall on Facebook, and whatnot; it is a public place to exchange info and discuss. *No insulting content. (See SVSC) Votes #In favor. #I agree with 1 and 3, but the advertising depends........ I have a rather small ad as one of my current projects about my MF revival, and that shouldn't be that bad. With the talk pages. With the talk pages, I agree. ::The advertising thing means its something that completely unrelated to Invader Zim or something on wikia, such as "Come to San Diego!" or links to random sites. Stuff like that which is just purely foreign. I've seen this stuff. Even dentist clinic ads. |-| Chat Rules= For Chat, a set a rules should be in order. *No sockpuppetry *No spam *No curse words *No insults. Votes #In definate favor. Hi, I'm Zimfan! Talk To me! I Am Normal. 03:18, October 25, 2012 (UTC) #In favor. None of this anywhere. |-| Wiki Behavior= We really need this, with the behavior getting WAY out of hand. Here are following rules we should look over. *No asking for pity and compliments **First Time: Warning and 2 day ban **Second Time: 1 week **Third Time: 1 Month **Fourth Time: Indefinate Votes: #Support. *Do not make blogs that say you're leaving then say "If you give me ____ Reasons, then I'll stay". **First Time: Warning **Second Time: Indefinate Block Votes: #Support. #For and Against - While I agree that we should definitely should do something about this, I do NOT agree on the consequences you have proposed. You guys are implenting the "indefinite block" WAYY too liberally. I will reiterate: MUST NOT MAKE THE INDEFINITE BLOCK THE SECOND STEP. It must be used ONLY in the most extreme of circumstances (i.e. a user who continues to vandalise pages after being warned six times. Otherwise, we're being unreasonably draconian. I think that the consequences for this issue should be thus: 1st time: Warning 2nd time: One-day blocking 3rd time: One month 4th time: One year --Dr. Anonymous1 (talk) 23:00, November 9, 2012 (UTC) #Doctor, one day block? How about this as a compromise. 1st time: Warning 2nd time: 1 month. 3rd time: 3 months. 4th time: Indefinate. Believe me, just saying this takes a lot of restriant, since we all know how annoying it is "GIVE ME ___ AND ILL STAY." Seriously, this kinda stuff is just grabbing attention, which is way worse then any spam or vandal could do. Hi! I'm ZimFan! Talk to me! YIPPIE! 23:09, November 9, 2012 (UTC) #I am very sorry, I will support, still sorry if there is anything I can do to make up for my mistake tell me. From 18:07, November 10, 2012 (UTC) #S'all right, all is forgiven. But seriously, ZF, why do you ALWAYS have to make "one month" the next step? That is ridiculously draconian for such a simple matter as this. I say we do one warning, and then one WEEK. There, satisfied? Dr. Anonymous1 (talk) 18:57, November 10, 2012 (UTC) ::#Actually, I'm think a one month block is okay. We can't go incredibly soft on the users who are disrespectful and arrogant to others, and have bad intentions, even if only a little. They have to learn that this is what happens when you Behave like that, just like in real life; it gets you nowhere. ::#I agree with Blossom. We gave them a warning, and we can't go incredibly soft on the users that are disrespectful. Hi! I'm ZimFan! Talk to me! YIPPIE! 22:12, November 10, 2012 (UTC) |-| Another rule= *You must be polite to other users. You may not make insults or jokes relating to race, religion, beliefs, etc. *First time: Warning and have them remove it. *Second time or if they don't adhere: 2 weeks **Third Time: 6 weeks **Fourth Time: 6 months **Fifth Time: Indefinate ban Votes #Support. #Support 18:04, November 10, 2012 (UTC) |-| How To Type/Manual Of Style 2.0= Seeing how The Manual Of Style has ended, I had a new proposal for the "Manual Of Style". *We use American-English, due to the fact that IZ is an American-English using show. *NO Internet Slang/Words that aren't in an English dictonary in an article. Don't use "Ain't" "ur" or any other internet slang in an article. It makes us look unprofessional. *No swear words in an article. "F**k" "Bi**h" once again makes us look UNPROFESSIONAL. *Other rules to be added. Votes: #In Agreement, since I made it. :p Hi! I'm ZimFan! Talk to me! YIPPIE! 22:40, July 16, 2013 (UTC)